care providers must strive to improve their patient’s health, do the most good for the patient in every situation (dummies, 2018). Nonetheless what is good for one patient may not be good for another, each situation should be considered individually. Other values that might conflict with beneficence may need to be considered (dummies, 2018). If the dentist had been focused on treatment needed to be done and had doubled checked before giving LA this scenario could have been avoided.

Thirdly Non-maleficence, “First, do no harm” is the bedrock of medical ethics (dummies, 2018). Every situation, healthcare providers should avoid causing harm to patients. You should also be aware of the doctrine of double effect, where treatment intended for good unintentionally causes harm. This doctrine helps make difficult decisions about whether actions with double effects can be undertaken (dummies, 2018). The dentist failed to comply with this by giving LA unintentionally on the wrong side.

Finally, Justice this principle demands that you should try to be as fair as possible when offering treatments and allocating scarce medical resources (dummies, 2018). You should be able to justify your actions in every situation (dummies, 2018). The dentist should have been thinking of his patients more when he made the decision to continue working even though he was not at his most competent to be providing the best of care.

Conclusion

Legally the dentist has an obligation to protect and care for patients. By not making the right decision to not attend work until he was medically fit and well he was putting all patients at risk of potential serious harm.

Ethically, the patient was denied Non-maleficence, after being given unnecessary LA on the wrong side of the mouth and denied Justice as she was not informed what had happened to be able to get the apology she deserved or be able to make the decision to take things further if she wished.